The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. group, warns that man-made climate change is already causing destruction around the globe. And it will only get worse unless we act quickly.

Leading climate and polar bear scientists share their thoughts on the report and the path forward:

What the latest report shows is that climate change is adversely impacting us now, wherever we live. It isn’t just the Arctic and the polar bear anymore. We are now the polar bear. If we are to avert increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible changes in our climate, we need to act now. We must transition from our reliance on fossil fuels to alternative, renewable sources of energy that do not threaten the health of our planet.[bold in original]

Dr. Steven Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar Bears International

In 2007, I projected that global warming was likely to eliminate two-thirds of the world’s polar bears by the middle of this century. After making that point in a recent public lecture, a college student in the audience asked what would happen to the rest of the polar bears if we fail to act in time to head off that ‘mid-century polar bear crisis.’ My answer:

At that point, no one will be thinking about polar bears, because coping with and adapting to ongoing human crises will consume all of society’s resources.

The recent report by Working Group II of the IPCC adds emphasis in spades to my response. The hundreds of scientists whose independent research composes the IPCC concluded that:

Climate change already is negatively affecting every part of the globe

The frequency and severity of extreme weather will continue to increase as long as greenhouse gas levels rise

Along with steep and rapid reductions in emissions, we will need to develop plans for coping with a constantly changing world with ever new and more difficult challenges

The good news, however, is that while the panel concluded the world cannot afford inaction, it emphasized we still have time to stop the worst effects of warming. If we do, we also are likely to save polar bears.

The IPCC report is an enormous achievement and great resource for the scientific community and the public alike. But more than that, it provides a clear summary of where we are and what can be done. How we should act in the face of this information is complex and should be discussed at all levels. I hope only that those discussions are fully informed about what the science is showing—and that these discussions lead to meaningful action.

Dr. Ian Stirling, Research Scientist Emeritus, Canadian Wildlife Service

The recent report from the IPCC is stunning and should be a major stimulus for governments around the world to develop a global plan to reduce greenhouse gases … soon. One of the most important messages is that there is still time, but not that much of it, if the world is to restrain warming within manageable bounds.

The situation in the Arctic, though, is more dire and changing rapidly. The climate is warming there more rapidly than elsewhere on the planet, with the result that the sea ice is now disappearing even more quickly than once predicted by several different models. That is bad news, not just for polar bears, but for the whole Arctic marine ecosystem.

Why climate warming is so critical for polar bears is a simple concept and easily understood, even by children. Polar bears need ice to be able to hunt their primary prey: marine mammals, primarily seals. No ice means no ice bear. That isn’t complicated to understand.

“…Why climate warming is so critical for polar bears is a simple concept and easily understood, even by children. Polar bears need ice to be able to hunt their primary prey: marine mammals, primarily seals. No ice means no ice bear. That isn’t complicated to understand….”

This is such BS. It overlooks the strong possibility that the primary enemy of polar bears, like all arctic life, is surviving in the extreme cold. Polar warming, then, might be a big net plus for polar bears, even if it meant that it was somewhat harder to hunt. And even that’s not likely — seals who already like to spend time out of the water knowing that it makes them more likely to be killed and eaten by polar bears will continue to some ashore **somewhere** at the ocean’s edge even if the ice decreases. In fact, less ice, same number of seals, could mean the seals are more crowded near the shore and easier for the polar bears to find.

“■Climate change already is negatively affecting every part of the globe” – This is a big statement which they can’t substantiate especially as temperatures aren’t rising and sea level rise is not accelerating. I guess a reduction in major cyclones and tornadoes is a negative effect, for them at least, because it means they’ve got some explaining to do.

“■The frequency and severity of extreme weather will continue to increase as long as greenhouse gas levels rise” – notice that they omit to connect extreme weather with temperature. So now we go directly from increasing CO2 to catastrophe without there being any need for temperatures to rise. What beautiful minds. Even Pauchari said in Australian press a year ago that there has been no temperature rise for a decade and a half so would the good Dr. Steven Amstrup please explain why the frequency and severity of extreme weather will CONTINUE to increase.

By some estimates, the polar bear has been around for 600,000 years. In addition to the current interglacial period, there were preceding interglacials at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now.

What matters to polar bears is Spring sea ice not the September minimum. September sea ice extent up in 2013 over 2012.

Abstract
We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.

AbstractArctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.

Abstract
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.

I love how the language about lacking the equivalent of “Marx & Engels class consciousness” is modified by the phrase “at present.” K-12 education and higher ed dictated by Second Nature are certainly targeting that very consciousness in so many ways.

polar bear have been traced back to bears in ireland at the last ice age. When it was much warmer in the roman period the romans were using polar bears in the arena so they were still alive then when greenland really was a greenland.

bears and wolves are extinct [thro man] in uk . Nothing to do with warming. People get twitchy when they are face to face with apex predators rather than watching them on discovery channel

10 April: MissoulaNews: We are the new polar bear
Scientist M. Sanjayan talks about his upcoming television series “Years of Living Dangerously”
Q: What do you think of the recent and dire report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that basically says no one will come out unscathed?
MS: If you look at the first IPCC report you would almost want to put the polar bear on the front of it … The good thing about this recent IPCC report is that it squarely puts the focus on humans. When you read this report you’re like, ‘Oh I get it. We are the polar bear.”…

Am I wrong, or didn’t the polar bears in the distant past have to survive aperiod of ice free Arctic Oceans?
.” The climate is warming there more rapidly than elsewhere on the planet,”
That’s not hard, since the rest of the planet is cooling.

Indeed we are the polar bear and the polar bear is doing great. As the Inuit say it is the time of the most polar bear.

Stirling speaks with a forked tongue. He publishes that heavy ice years were the worse for polar bears and seals and then says “its a simple concept and easily understood, even by children. Polar bears need ice to be able to hunt their primary prey” But he has co-auhtored papers showing heavy ice is worse for ring seals. http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html

The idea that an earth with no global warming for 17 years and 7+ months is a threat to polar bears is ridiculous. Polar bears are the descendants and relatives of the Kodiak and Brown bears. What the h*ll did they do to become Polar bears? They adapted themselves to the needs of the new habitat. And even if their current habitat should vanish(which is as unlikely as hell to freeze) they will pack up and move somewhere else or adapt themselves to the new circumstances. They did it before, and, they’ll do it again, if necessary. That’s real life, Gentlemen from the Ivory Tower of Science. Mother Nature knows better than you scaremogers!

Robin says:
April 15, 2014 at 4:59 am
“I love how the language about lacking the equivalent of “Marx & Engels class consciousness” is modified by the phrase “at present.” K-12 education and higher ed dictated by Second Nature are certainly targeting that very consciousness in so many ways.”

There are competing agitators needing human fodder for their own movements: Gender ideologues and Multiculturalists.

And then, there’s the eternal danger that the victims start rejecting all of them and become self-actualizing.

I had heard that polar bear numbers have increased too, I have also heard that there has been no global warming for almost 18 years. So, why must we take action now?
In UK every Spring we have the doom-mongers telling us one or more species will die out due to AGW and there will be a blight of whatever it was that these species preyed upon. So far this has’t happened either!

I can remember skimming a newspaper article about how genetic tests showed that polar bears once interbred extensively with land dwelling brown bears. i believe they even dated when it was that the genetic intermixing took place. It would be interesting to compare it to the dates of past periods of arctic warming.

(We could see more tornadoes this Spring, something which is perfectly NORMAL for the U.S., but our climate “scientists” will attempt pervert this for their own gain…citing the same “extreme weather” b.s.).

If my memory is correct, the big “global warming” thing started in 1979, when temperatures started to increase. According to RSS temperatures, it has been 17 years + since the world has seen any temperature increase. 17 + years puts us back to some time near the middle of 1997, and 17 + years onto 1979, allowing the “warming” to start in January, puts us in the later half of 1996. Amazing, isn’t it, that the virtually same length of time that temperature rose is so much longer and meaningful than the virtually same length of time that temperature has staood still. Yes, the more you look, the more the SCAM does show up. I wonder why it takes so long for the “average indoctrinated world citizen” to see this farce for what it really is, whatever that may be, but to me is a scheme to reduce population via starvation and hypothermia?

Remember folks, intentional lying (“exaggerated scary scenarios”) is the accepted form of climate science “science”. That they get away with such unsupported comments while representing themselves as University faculty is beyond belief. But we must ask ourselves this question: Are universities then the supporter, indeed the source, of this deception? If that be the factual case, every University scientist should gather voices together, no matter the discipline, and call a stop to this kind of thing. The general public will not remember science of any model or color kindly when this wide spread media campaign pushed on us by Ivory Tower agendas proves false and even purposely deceptive.

“We are now the polar bear!”
This has some truth when you look at the streets of Chicago.
The shooting decreased and the polar bears recovered.

One thing about all of those scientist statements above, all of them basically state, “we must close the sale right now or the offer will expire”. I have learned over the years that its always time to walk when I hear that tactic.

I gather that this latest report is another of the dozen or so to “exonerate” Mann and the hockey stick. It claims, after all, that he has been cleared and “didn’t work” on the report about which he is quoted.

From the article ” Polar bears need ice to be able to hunt their primary prey: marine mammals, primarily seals. No ice means no ice bear. That isn’t complicated to understand.”

My only information is from what I read. I have seen a counter argument. I have no idea which is right.

The counter argument is that less ice, means more sunlight into open water. This means more phytoplankton, the bottom of the food change. More phytoplankton means the whole food change increases, meaning more food for the top of the food change; the polar bear. Who to believe.

Yes, the climate clowns do tend to be drama queens. The “concern” for the poor poly bear in addition to being misplaced, and not based on the facts about polar bear populations which are increasing, is really just faux concern, and a blatant appeal to people’s emotions, especially childrens’.
The only group that is an endangered species are these pitiful, pathetic climate hoaxsters and hucksters, as the CAGW ideology they push is a dying one.

Remember, they have to save the planet by December 2015 or its over. Er, or they just postpone the date again while they try to get another Kyoto protocol signed and get all our money redistributed. They probably think everyone forgot about that IG report on Monnett’s study and how observations of 3 dead polar bears in the water was BS’d and extrapolated into extinction scenarios.

“While computer models suggest the Baffin Bay polar bear population is being over-hunted, the number of polar bears across the Arctic has more than doubled over the past 30 years to 25,000, Gissing said.”

What the latest report shows is that climate change is adversely impacting us now, wherever we live. It isn’t just the Arctic and the polar bear anymore. We are now the polar bear. If we are to avert increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible changes in our climate, we need to act now. We must transition from our reliance on fossil fuels to alternative, renewable sources of energy that do not threaten the health of our planet.[bold in original]”

Mikey: If you want the world to phase out fossil fuels in favor of poor, unreliable and intermittent energy sources like wind and solar, then why don’t you lead to the buddy? Show us way to your Utopia Mikey by renouncing your dependence of fossil fuels in your personal life and starting a new life with energy exclusively from the likes of wind and solar. Let me know how well you did so I can use you as a model and follow in your footsteps (LOL). You most certainly would want your renewable energy powered life to be the model for everyone in the world, now wouldn’t you Mikey? Your ego is certainly big enough for that.

Oh, and get yourself and electric car while you’re at it Mikey. I’m sure you can figure out a way to keep the batteries charged with wind and solar instead of those evil, horrible energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear. And don’t worry if you find yourself in the middle of nowhere with dead batteries someday and no recharging source or capability. Maybe you should install solar panels on the car’s roof (and mini-wind turbines maybe? Just a thought.). Anyway Mikey, I’m sure you’ll figure some way of getting back home again…..maybe. What’s that Mikey? Your cell phone battery is dead too? Not to worry, you don’t really need a tow truck anyway. Hitchhiking usually works. If I see you hitchhiking as I’m driving by, I’m sure you’ll understand why I can’t and won’t pick you up. My car is fossil fuel powered, and I know you wouldn’t like that. It’s a matter of principle, isn’t it Mikey?

I don’t know how much wind and solar energy you’ll get to power your life there in the Penn State area Mikey. Again though, let me know how well you do in this new life. I really, really, really would like to hear from you. Really. /sarc.

- We have a problem. We told them that the time to act was then, otherwise it would be too late, and nobody acted. Several years have passed, so in theory now it’s already too late. How are we going to convince them to do anything at this point?
– Change the theory.
– But surely they will notice, won’t they?
– That’s something we can more or less control via moderation tools in the correct blogs.
– C’mon, you know that we do not control the most read and influential climate change blogs in the blogosphere.
– Wrong, we don’t control the most read, but we can kind of decide which ones are more influential by discrediting the others as anti-science when talking to the politicians.
– OK, if you think so…
– Try with this: “The good news, however, is that while the panel concluded the world cannot afford inaction, it emphasized we still have time to stop the worst effects of warming“.

The Socialist and Marxist control agenda is falling apart all around the world. They are trying very hard to silence all forms of real science from being seen and they are crying ‘WOLF’ in an attempt to keep others from looking closely and to keep people acting on fear alone. That alone should tell you how much of their story is true. Sadly many are content to be pushed around by feelings of dread and taking into no account the real facts of the situation.

Just one more fear and dread propagandist piece from the left wing control fanatics with no basis in reality.

The claptrap that nourishes the Kool-Aid drinkers, fills the coffers of Big Green and gets all these charlatans to their fat pension cheques. Also keeps Barack’s friend Warren moving oil and bitumen through your home town on his trains. Hasn’t quite managed to get our new US ambassador’s old firm doing with carbon trading what they did with mortgages but everyone’s putting in their best effort.

Mann: “We must transition from our reliance on fossil fuels to alternative, renewable sources of energy that do not threaten the health of our planet.”

Well, as all the concrete, metal and glass fibre for wind turbines, silicon semiconductors for solar panels, electronics for both, and toxic chemicals for batteries – and don’t forget you need a thousand times more hardware for these than for a high density power source as you’re trying to scrape minimal amounts of energy together all over the place – as these components don’t just fall from the sky, I guess our best bet would be 1650’s Dutch windmills. They’re pretty sustainable, as long as you don’t build too many of them, you don’t wanna run out of trees.

Yes, children have been a primary target of the CAGW alarmists for quite some time, they are trusting and rarely ask awkward questions and challenge authority with the added effect that by the time they are adults they have been fully indoctrinated by the alarmist propaganda of CAGW.
Children identify Polar bears with cuddly toys, their emotional strings are being pulled by experts who know how to manipulate vulnerable young people.

Alan the Brit @ 7:20 has it right. This is a movement to crush capitalism, take over the means of production, and remove any opposition to their plans to manipulate our lives to their liking. The global warming polar bear hustle isn’t he only game in play. Right now the wolf reintroduction in the US, while initially the darling of the USFWS, has now been taken up by anti ranching, anti land ownership, anti capitalist, anti freedom collectivists. Animals make good imagery for the cause. It has an appeal that some can’t resist.

So the polar bear risks famine if the Arctic ice melts? Really? Seals are the primary prey for the bears, and seals cunningly hide their cubs at airholes in the ice for a quick escape. The polar bears equally cunningly have developed advanced tecniques for stalking and attacking these hideouts. An absence of ice will force the seals to place their offspring on solid ground, with dramatically less chance of escape. The risk of the polar bears in that situation, if any, will be obesity.

So an increasing population of polar bears is to be ignored and predictions (which have failed so far) are more important. Typical of what passes for reasoning in the climate kook inductry.
And a suppine media simply repeats the climate kook hype without qualification, much less question.

I’ve met Ian Stirling and he really does know more about polar bears than anyone else I can think of. He’s a decent human being and would not, IMHO, indulge in deliberate deception. The accusation of speaking with a forked tongue isn’t warranted.

ON THE OTHER HAND, just because he’s an upstanding guy, that doesn’t make him right (even if he knows more about polar bears than any ten other scientists and the vast majority of Innuit (Eskimos)).

The knowledge we gain under one set of circumstances leads us to a set of assumptions. Those assumptions aren’t necessarily correct when the circumstances change. When we extrapolate beyond the circumstances that prevailed when we gained our expertise, we are extrapolating. Very often our guess is no better than anyone else’s. Sometimes it is worse because our very expertise blinds us to what is actually happening.

It’s not about reality. It’s all about perception. It’s politics, dogma, ideology, appealing for grant monies, hubris, fascination with fame, and by this stage, a blunt realization that their reputations will certainly lie in ruin eventually and the only option available is to extend the timeline of their professional and scientific irrelevancy is to keep peddling the garbage as often and as much as possible. I think these people realize the opportunities for bronze busts and portraits in the world’s educational corridors and galleries have been squandered. The strategy has now reverted to professional and personal survival. A little white lie is not such a bad thing…Is it?

The Sceptic crowed has been saying that the polar bear population has been growing for the last 30 years. That is only kind of correct. The population rebounded when conservation efforts started in the 1970. However, they have not been increasing recently; they have remained “Stable”. The CAGW crew has been using data from a new counting method to try to show that the population is currently decreasing. It is really quite hard to tell what is actually happening. Around 2006 the count method changed, and some populations were not counted at all. So it truly is comparing apples and oranges. However, what we do know is that the population is not collapsing or anything else very dramatic.

Every aspect of this agenda is designed to be implemented in ways that defy anyone’s ability to veto t. Only mass recognition will suffice. In fact Ban Ki-Moon himself has said that the UN’s unappreciated control over ed globally means that it can gain the implementation of its agenda.

So I research, document, and write. At least I still have a sense of humor about all these grandiose, but very real, plans for all of us.

The Great Transition is the UN/OECD/Club of Rome/New Economics Foundation/Tellus Institute term for what Marx called a Human Development society where a sufficient stage of technology now exists to allow redistribution “from each according to his means, to each according to his abilities.” Bureaucrats and former politicians looking to be the well-paid administrators of an always toxic vision.

The bears just don’t seem to understand the models that forecast their demise. Perhaps if some of the “researchers” spent some time up with the bears and the people who must cope with them they would have much less to worry about and the bears might get a land based food source if the ice goes away. Solves two problems at once.

That Drs. Amstrup and Stirling would make such comments in this article is unconscionable. They were both involved with the 2006 Polar Bear Survey that has now been admittedly wrong and therefore needs to be discarded. Yet here they are unashamed, unbowed and bloviating the same memes as before. Dr. Susan Crockford’s excellent blog “Polar Bear Science” has a plethora of information available. Her Mar. 24/14 post discusses this issue. See her post above at 8:10 for her blog address.

“The IPCC report is an enormous achievement and great resource for the scientific community and the public alike. But more than that, it provides a clear summary of where we are and what can be done. How we should act in the face of this information is complex and should be discussed at all levels. I hope only that those discussions are fully informed about what the science is showing—and that these discussions lead to meaningful action.”

– – – – – – – – – – –

NASA GISS Deputy Chief Schmidt’s advice, prima fascia, is reasonable. However, it is not at all credible that he means there should be any open and transparent debate in academia, the MSM and in the government on the IPCC process and assessments. Namely, his apparent support of debate cannot be taken as credible based on his legendary past ‘no debate’ behavior and his countless statements contrary to open debate which occurred on the blog ‘Real Climate’ where he has often acted for many years like a host / editor / moderator.

NASA GISS Deputy Chief Schmidt must first reconcile his above statement with his long standing and well known public opposition to the very thing he advises in his above statement.

Until NASA GISS Deputy Chief Schmidt explains then the question of possible conceptual duplicity is unresolved.

Just because he is a nice guy doesnt change the facts. He has published several papers showing heavy ice years caused fewer seals and more stressed bears. He has also published that less is is bad for bears. If that is not a forked tongue, then perhaps dementia? alzheimers? There is no excusing it.

Michael Mann may actually be right for once in his life. After this winter we’ve had in the US I’m starting to feel like a polar bear.

How right you are sir, how right you are. Several inches of snow on the ground this morning AGAIN and it is not an April fools’ joke. Politically incorrect animal fur is the only means to keep from freezing the nubbies off. Dog wouldn’t even go out for most of the winter, and she has a very heavy fur coat. She wanted to save her nubbies too.

Steven Amstrup says “I predicted in 2007 that 2/3rd’s of the world’s polar bears would be gone by mid century …” and no one stops to ask him how his prediction is working out?

As I’ve said repeatedly, one doesn’t need physics to understand climate change. Simple arithmatic will do. As in we are 1/6 th of the way there and at 0/3 rd’s with regard to polar bear population decline. Guess those pesky bears are all waiting until 2049 to die.

There are 20,000-25,000 polar bears in existence, 15,000 live in Canada.
32,350 Polar bear specimens (polar bears dead or alive, and their parts and derivatives) were traded internationally for all purposes between 2001 and 2010.
1. That’s well over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally.
2. Of the 600 polar bears killed in Canada each year, the parts of more than half of them are traded internationally.
3. From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold.

Canada acknowledges that it allows 3.75 percent of its bears to be killed every year, but the maximum rate of population growth for polar bears is between 4-6 percent per year. In healthy, growing populations, an annual hunt quota of 3.75 percent would slow, and possibly even stop, that growth.

Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the mid-1970’s.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
As of 2013, 5 of 19 populations were in decline. (Therefore, 14 were increasing or stable.)

One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. … We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. (How would I expect? Why not just say it?) … But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. (If this is the most important point, then what less important points are also irrelevant?)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. (Similar to Russian extrapolation presented in 1956.) A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs'”

If the world is actually feeling threatened that polar bears might cease to exist at some future point of time, why are they still being subjected to legal hunting?
Legal hunting really is the crux of the issue. There are no statistics on the numbers that die each year due to global warming. Are there zero? One? More? How does that compare to “over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally” and “From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold”?

I think Stirling, Derocher, et al are busy studying trees (individual bears) without realizing they are in a forest. Bears (all bears, all predators) move hundreds of kilometres over fairly short time frames. The bears don’t recognize “groups” drawn on a map. They move across imaginary borders all the time, looking for food, moving with the ice and and other natural drivers. Some monitored bears have moved thousands of kilometres, who knows why? And, yes, hunting by humans has been shown to have the single biggest effect on Polar Bear populations. Currently, the question is: How much damage is tranquillizing and collaring bears to monitor them doing. The Inuit want it to stop. And in some places, it has been stopped and hence the “new” counting method. I think the researchers believe what they say, but to use the old engineering phrase: “When you are up to your a$$ in alligators, it’s hard to remember you came to survey the swamp.” I suspect that they are so into the details of region by region and individual bear studies, they can’t put things into an overall multi-decadal, multi-century perspective. And then of course, without alarmism, where would the funding for all the helicopter fuel needed to do the research come from? 😉

What makes these martinettes think that the polar bears want them to be the polar bear. Without the benefit of higher powered rifles, we humans are little more than bear kibble for a polar bear. Maybe we should sponsor a fundraiser for these people so that we can send them to the Arctic so they can hug and pet the polar bear right before they are eviscerated and eaten.

Oh my, lions and tigers and bears! I have a knack for attracting CAGW believers to engage in lengthy often heated and emotional discussions about the state of the earth and climate science. One thing that I noticed over the years are bullet point like meme’s or sound bite statements. For example: “But the polar bears are dying from the melting arctic?” or “There are more storms of greater violence and frequency just like the models predicted!” and “There has been a continued up-trending of global troposphere temperatures since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” to “Then how come 97% of scientists agree that CAGW is happening?” as well as ” The Models are right on and there has been NO PAUSE in AGW. I am not talking with you anymore.” then there is “The oceans are rising, the ice at the poles is melting!” followed by “The oceans are becoming more acidic from CO2 absorption making carboxylic acid and bleaching the coral reefs to death!” and more…. Now we are accosted with dire emotionality facts be damned that CO2 is a poison and anyone questioning these meme’s are denialist contrarian anti-science conspiracy enthusiasts, and this is now entrenched in the k-12 education system to shape future thinking and behavior!?!? Orwellian on steroids! My thought and question is: Are we being deliberately steered by a small but influential group of people to accept policy that is grounded in fraud? If this is the case then as I see it pushing back with facts to counter the fraud becomes imperative lest we surrender our thinking minds and very souls to some all powerful global authoritarian control paradigm. There is a movement / organization called “Transitions” in my town filled with many good people and the leadership is purely CAGW fanatics, I have been invited to speak at their meetings. This should be fun. The premise is that communities need to transition away from fossil fuels and create alternative social constructions and limit economic growth etc. Sound familiar?

I have a teenage daughter studying “AP Environmental Studies” in a US High School, and she is being pumped full of the “stuff” that george e. conant cites above in each and every class. They are finally getting to “Climate Change” and she is afraid that she will get an “F” if she comes in spouting anything that sniffs of skepticism. I told her that she is just going to have to learn it as the teacher dictates (the curriculum says that the glaciers will be gone by 2013–oops that is inconvenient) and then she will have to undergo “deprogramming” after the class is over.

The technique for quashing any reasoned challenge to the doctrine is that the teacher basically calls you stupid in front of all of your classmates and openly laughs at you. Imagine a teacher using that technique on someone who supported an unorthodox view of religion or sexuality? And yet it is politically correct to scoff at people who ask legitimate factual questions (“By the way Mr. Will, it is 2014. Are the glaciers all melted?”)

“Why climate warming is so critical for polar bears is a simple concept and easily understood, even by children. Polar bears need ice to be able to hunt their primary prey: marine mammals, primarily seals. No ice means no ice bear. That isn’t complicated to understand.”

Even by children who are no longer taught logic. If the ice disappears (recent couple of years suggests were not in a death spiral by any means), then the seals become shore seals, like they are outside the arctic and the bear has a linear hunting ground instead of a more difficult two dimensional one. This has happened in the Arctic before: driftwood and beach sand dunes on the now ice bound north coast of Greenland as one piece of strong evidence.

I wonder if the iron curtain coming down wasn’t a soc_ialist invasion of western universities and institutions, greenpeace, editorships, NGOs…. We WERE dealing with a nation of chess players. A bit fanciful perhaps, but a good plot for a Ludlum novel.

According to “Polar Bear Science” the polar bear population is increasing. The only real threat from climate change is if the climate scientists spend the money they’re getting from the taxpayers on polar bear hunting trips.

===========================================================
It sounds like you have a daughter that can think and you can be proud of and you can be thankful (and proud of your parenting) that she comes to you with such things.
May I suggest that you tell her on the test to answer as the teacher expects to avoid the F to show she knows what was taught propounded in the classroom. You help her to separate the science from the scatology. If she’s up to it, she can then say that she knows what the expected answer is but offer the other answer.

…..Yes, the more you look, the more the SCAM does show up. I wonder why it takes so long for the “average indoctrinated world citizen” to see this farce…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What makes you think the average citizen hasn’t seen this farce for what it is?

First the MSNBC pollwas still open on April 9th, there were 12K votes and the vote was 82% NO! (9,976 votes) (Now it is still 12K and 81% NO!)

Then there was the bloggie awards. Skeptic blogs won seven out of thirty awards even though the rules were changed to get rid of the science and technology awards. Many of the awards were for catagories like “Best Fashion or Beauty Weblog” or “Best Parenting or Family Weblog” or “Best Pet or Animal Weblog” so Skeptics did quite well in the categories in which they possibly qualified. <a href="http://2014.bloggi.es/

Remember the ordinary citizen does not control the Mass Media. The Mass Media, trying to take advantage of the herd mentality of most humans, is censoring not only the articles but also the comments so the perception that the vast majority agree with the Warmist position is projected to the population but that is not what is really going on in the background and people have become wise to this.

If the skeptics were not such a major threat to the Warmist position we would be ignored not silenced and vilified.

We’ve been needing to “act now” for at least a couple of decades already. If the general public are still swallowing this crap, is it because they have short memories, or is it because the “act now” mantra has been passed on to another generation?

Is there any proof polar bears eat humans? Why I ask is that I know Grizzly bears do, and other bears who attack humans, but generally you won’t find humans on ice flows where the bears hunt. The males are known to eat young cubs. No fatherly love there. Pretty hard to find prey if it is dark during the polar winters.
Using this is as a metaphor, is like saying humans will have to hibernate too, like bears. Wish Mann would but that’s what .I would like to see, preferably alongside a mother bear with cubs.

Is there any proof polar bears eat humans? Why I ask is that I know Grizzly bears do, and other bears who attack humans, but generally you won’t find humans on ice flows where the bears hunt.

===================================================================
I did some checking but this is all I could find.

The National Park Rangers are advising hikers in Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain parks to be alert for bears and take extra precautions to avoid an encounter.
They advise park visitors to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge.
Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered. Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear’s sensitive nose and it will run away.
It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area. People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.
Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.

“At midday, when the sun had risen a little above the horizon, a large party went out to the spot and found the bear finishing his feast upon the other hunter and soon dispatched him. Cases similar to this occur occasionally all along the coast where the bear is found in winter.”

Ian Stirling, 1974:
“Dr. Stirling felt that complete cessation of hunting, such as exists in Norway, may increase bear-man conflicts. Dr. Reimers replied that the careful harvesting of polar bears was probably desirable, but the total ban now in effect was largely an emotional and political decision rather than a biological one. Last year four bears were killed in self-defense.”
(1974 PBSG meeting “Norway – progress reported by [Thor] Larsen”; Anonymous 1976:11).

Stephen Amstrup, 2013:
“We have predicted in no uncertain times [sic – terms?] that as bears become hungrier as the sea ice absence period is longer, more and more of these animals are going to be venturing into communities, venturing into villages, raiding food caches, getting into garbage, and even attacking people. So we predict these kinds of events are going to be more frequent and more severe because of climate change.”
(The Guardian, November 4, 2013).

Thanks for the polar bear info. Maybe they don’t hibernate in winter like other bears? I find that strange, especially in the Arctic when sunlight is reduced. Sounds stupid, but why don’t these alarmists erected warning signs around where polar bears roam. “Keep out polar bears can kill you” (Unless you have a bleedin’ big gun with you). I wonder how Inuits fare with them? Another question eh? I saw a doco where a mother bear was coming out of hybernation from a snow drift, and a male eating a cub.

In the real world there has been no global warming in this century and the polar bear population is increasing. It’s important to remember these people are talking about the polar bears in la la land, where they are from.

I did find some info on the internet. The Inuits do track and kill bears. It is part of the culture, and polar bears do not hibernate either but mother bears will create a den to have their cubs in until they are old enough to venture outside. The Inuits do not agree with the climate change alarmists,they say there are over 20,000 to 25,000 bears around, most in Canada. There was a 17 year old killed last year on a camping trip with many others, the bear was shot of course. But considering their estimated numbers, few human deaths are accorded to them, in comparison to other bears like black and brown bears. But the Inuits do not want an protective laws as the bears are part of their culture with spiritual meaning, and are not endangered.